sechan19: (kusama)
Everything about this film is wonderful. Well, let me clarify that statement. The film features a number of sequences that are terrible, that are frightening, saddening, disheartening. This film evokes a world on the brink of extinction and the desperation and despair that are a necessary part of such a reality. At the same time, it is a tremendously uplifting tale and one that - through its veil of death and destruction - makes the viewer feel wholly and vibrantly alive.

The premise is rather simple. The human race has become infertile and subsequently civilization has crumbled. It's an interesting idea - the idea that human beings would give up so completely and totally without a succeeding generation to carry on the torch. It seems ludicrous. We all die anyway and many of us carry on as if we didn't care for those coming after us, forgetting that we have not inherited this land from our ancestors (as the Native American saying goes) but have instead borrowed it from our children. So what difference would it truly make to us if our species died out? Would the force of evolutionary instinct be so strong as to topple civilization in its hysteria of extinction? Perhaps.

But there's an intriguing underlining theme that walks hand in hand with the above, and that is the notion that children themselves are a civilizing presence without whom mankind is truly lost. In exploring this theme, Children of Men illuminates not just what is wrong in our society, but also what is right. It strives to remind us that there are ways in which we do not completely bollocks it up - a timely and strengthening reminder in this precarious age.
sechan19: (kusama)
There were a number of intriguing articles in this morning's news. My two favorite concerned art and film.

First off, this man is my hero:
O'Toole in '07: Still on a Role (Washington Post)

Everyone else can have their Sean Connerys and their Anthony Hopkinses. For me, it is all about Peter O'Toole, and I want to see his latest film desperately. Here's hoping it comes to my little cow town sometime in the next decade. Check out the article for a great description of Venus as well as a bit about O'Toole and his recommended filmography.

This next one requires more consideration. It concerns the struggle in France over whether or not to brand museums and begin building branches of them outside of the country. Both the Louvre and the Pompidou are considering ambitious projects for overseas museums. Now, on the one hand this could have great benefits - making more of these huge collections (the majority of which are in storage) available to more people all over the world, and fostering a sense of cultural cooperation between nations East and West. On the other hand, there is the question of how much of a mercenary attitude should be taken towards public collections of art. This question is particularly touchy in France, where the public does not have the final say in the situation. Though the major collections of art in the country belong to the government, the museum decision-making process rests with cultural ministers and never goes to the people for a vote. I'm not sure if that's right. The public should be able to weigh on in the issue, one way or another. Knowing the French, however, they'll balk if they want to - and the government will sit up and take notice if they do. They always do.

Louvre - Georges Pompidou Center - Abu Dhabi - Report (NY Times)

EDIT: Check out the comments section for links to more information, albeit from a different perspective, on this issue. Thanks [livejournal.com profile] lordameth for the tip!

May 2014

S M T W T F S
    123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2025 02:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios